FACE-GIVING (BAGI MUKA) AND FACE-PROTECTING (JAGA MUKA) THROUGH METAPHORS: ANALYSIS OF VERBAL INDIRECTNESS STRATEGIES AND POLITENESS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Foong Ha Yap

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: FACEWORK

  • Facework is fundamental to human interaction.
  • In many languages there are special terms for face-giving and face-saving.
  • In Malay/Indonesian, we have terms such as bagi muka ‘give face’ and jaga muka ‘protect face’.
  • Facework is important in daily life, not only in the personal domain but also the professional and public domains as well.

 

 

FOCUS OF THIS TALK

  • We focus on facework in political discourse from a cross-cultural perspective.
  • In particular, we focus on politicians’ use of metaphor as a verbal indirectness strategy:

-          constructing positive political identities for self

-          constructing negative political identities for rivals

 

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

  • Conceptual Blending Theory

(Fauconnier & Turner 2002)

  • Interactional Linguistics framework

(e.g. Selting & Couper- Kuhlen 2001)

 

DATA

  • Data for our analysis come from recent election campaigns in Asian regions, including Singapore and Hong Kong.
  • Findings from a perception study will also be discussed to examine the effects of metaphor in enhancing, maintaining, or damaging a speaker’s public image.

 

OBJECTIVES

  • To examine how electoral candidates construct political identities through the use of metaphors in electoral discourse:

-          Constructing favorable political identities for self

-          Constructing unfavorable political identities for rivals

  • To analyze the facework implications of these political metaphors.

 

WHY USE METAPHORS?

  • Metaphors are ”innovative and creative; they do not stem from pre-existing similarities, but induce similarities between different objects” (italics added). 
  • In this way, they help trigger a sense of awe, wonder and delight in us and “contribute to our new understanding and perception of the world”.
                        (Yeung, Yung & Fan 2013: 7; citing Hausman 1989)

Full Text:

PDF

References

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.

Forceville, C., Mulken, M., & Pair, R. 2010. The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3418–3430.

Hausman, C.R. 1989. Metaphor and Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuo, S-H. 2003. “You’re a little rabbit in a pack of foxes”: Animal metaphors in Chinese political discourse. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 31(1): 72-100.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Obeng, S.G. 1997. Language and Politics: indirectness in political discourse. Discourse and Society 8(1): 49-83.

Taskona, V. 2009. Humor and image politics in parliamentary discourse: a Greek case study. Text & Talk 29(2): 219-237.

Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. 1995. Conceptual integration and formal Expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10(3): 183-203.

Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. London: Blackwell.

Yeung, C.K., Yuen, S.Y., & Fan, Y.H. 2013. Visual metaphors in print advertisement. Manuscript, Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/pras.v0i0.1436

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.